5 ms·

> 10 Sept 2021 lol The piece references several different recent publications.

lern_too_spel 4y ago
The piece references and wrongly interprets recent publications instead of asking epidemiologists what they mean. Variants emerge by mutation and survive by evading immunity, both natural immunity from people who have gotten previous variants and vaccine-induced immunity. The only way to slow this is by reducing mutations, which means vaccinating as many people as possible, since gaining natural immunity means allowing the virus to replicate and thereby create more mutations.
- VagueMag 4y ago
  Where specifically in the article do you believe that the publications are wrongly interpreted? Your extremely naive and simplified view of how vaccination, mutation, and immune escape work is contradicted by many observed phenomena in epidemiology, which is often rife with subtle feedback mechanisms and surprising or counterintuitive outcomes. Not to mention the fact that the vaccines can't be reducing the number of mutations since they aren't preventing infections.
  - lern_too_spel 4y ago
    > Where specifically in the article do you believe that the publications are wrongly interpreted? "Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution." "Experts nevertheless claim that boosters improve protection against XBB. That’s disinformation, to use their favored term." (Hilariously, her assertion that this is disinformation is directly contradicted by the previous sentence she herself wrote: "A bivalent booster only slightly increased antibodies against XBB.") "But experts refuse to concede that boosters have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like XBB." A competent journalist would have asked the experts why. "The Biden administration’s monomaniacal focus on vaccines over new treatments has left the highest-risk Americans more vulnerable to new variants. Why doesn’t that seem to worry the experts?" Once again, she clearly states that she knows that the experts have interpreted the data differently. I don't know how you could have asked me an easier question. > Not to mention the fact that the vaccines can't be reducing the number of mutations since they aren't preventing infections. The data show that not only are they vaccines reducing the number of infections, but they are reducing the lengths of infections that do occur, reducing the number of copies made and thereby reducing the number of mutations.
  - moistly 4y ago
    Oh FFS. Vaccination greatly reduces the severity of illness, which is to say it greatly reduces how many cells get infected and how much the virus is replicated in the body. This necessarily reduces the opportunity for a mutation to occur. So tired of idiotic vaccination disinformation. It is always so goddamned moronic.
    - VagueMag 4y ago
      Your assumption that lesser severity of illness implies "greatly" reduced viral load is wrong (one might even say, moronic?): > During the Omicron period (Fig. 1b), a recent 3rd-dose increases Ct among vaccinees, and is similar to infection-derived protection. Otherwise, the differences in Ct for the unvaccinated (adjusted Ct 25.9), 2-dose (adjusted Ct 25.7) and late 3-dose groups (adjusted Ct 25.8) are negligible (Fig. 1b). In general, the effect of immune status for Omicron is less pronounced than for Delta even upon recent receipt of the 3rd vaccine dose or a previous infection, as manifested by reduced Ct-values gaps between these groups and the unvaccinated. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33096-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33096-0 "Recent" here meant having had a booster within the past 70 days. Call me crazy, but I don't think boostering the entire population against SARS-CoV-2 every 70 days is a realistic strategy to prevent new variants, or likely to lead to good health outcomes. These numbers for Omicron were also a significant narrowing of the gap from Delta; it will be interesting to see what happens to it with the new variant referenced in the OP!
      - monkeybutler 4y ago
        Your assumptions about others are not constructive. Two variants having different symptoms per viral load says nothing about the topic. Claiming it is possible to prevent all mutations with an extreme regiment also makes the wrong point for you. Obviously you understand how the vaccination is reducing mutation then.

The piece references and wrongly interprets recent publications instead of asking epidemiologists what they mean. Variants emerge by mutation and survive by evading immunity, both natural immunity from people who have gotten previous variants and vaccine-induced immunity. The only way to slow this is by reducing mutations, which means vaccinating as many people as possible, since gaining natural immunity means allowing the virus to replicate and thereby create more mutations.

VagueMag 4y ago
Where specifically in the article do you believe that the publications are wrongly interpreted? Your extremely naive and simplified view of how vaccination, mutation, and immune escape work is contradicted by many observed phenomena in epidemiology, which is often rife with subtle feedback mechanisms and surprising or counterintuitive outcomes. Not to mention the fact that the vaccines can't be reducing the number of mutations since they aren't preventing infections.
- lern_too_spel 4y ago
  > Where specifically in the article do you believe that the publications are wrongly interpreted? "Growing evidence also suggests that repeated vaccinations may make people more susceptible to XBB and could be fueling the virus’s rapid evolution." "Experts nevertheless claim that boosters improve protection against XBB. That’s disinformation, to use their favored term." (Hilariously, her assertion that this is disinformation is directly contradicted by the previous sentence she herself wrote: "A bivalent booster only slightly increased antibodies against XBB.") "But experts refuse to concede that boosters have yielded diminishing benefits and may even have made individuals and the population as a whole more vulnerable to new variants like XBB." A competent journalist would have asked the experts why. "The Biden administration’s monomaniacal focus on vaccines over new treatments has left the highest-risk Americans more vulnerable to new variants. Why doesn’t that seem to worry the experts?" Once again, she clearly states that she knows that the experts have interpreted the data differently. I don't know how you could have asked me an easier question. > Not to mention the fact that the vaccines can't be reducing the number of mutations since they aren't preventing infections. The data show that not only are they vaccines reducing the number of infections, but they are reducing the lengths of infections that do occur, reducing the number of copies made and thereby reducing the number of mutations.
- moistly 4y ago
  Oh FFS. Vaccination greatly reduces the severity of illness, which is to say it greatly reduces how many cells get infected and how much the virus is replicated in the body. This necessarily reduces the opportunity for a mutation to occur. So tired of idiotic vaccination disinformation. It is always so goddamned moronic.
  - VagueMag 4y ago
    Your assumption that lesser severity of illness implies "greatly" reduced viral load is wrong (one might even say, moronic?): > During the Omicron period (Fig. 1b), a recent 3rd-dose increases Ct among vaccinees, and is similar to infection-derived protection. Otherwise, the differences in Ct for the unvaccinated (adjusted Ct 25.9), 2-dose (adjusted Ct 25.7) and late 3-dose groups (adjusted Ct 25.8) are negligible (Fig. 1b). In general, the effect of immune status for Omicron is less pronounced than for Delta even upon recent receipt of the 3rd vaccine dose or a previous infection, as manifested by reduced Ct-values gaps between these groups and the unvaccinated. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33096-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33096-0 "Recent" here meant having had a booster within the past 70 days. Call me crazy, but I don't think boostering the entire population against SARS-CoV-2 every 70 days is a realistic strategy to prevent new variants, or likely to lead to good health outcomes. These numbers for Omicron were also a significant narrowing of the gap from Delta; it will be interesting to see what happens to it with the new variant referenced in the OP!
    - monkeybutler 4y ago
      Your assumptions about others are not constructive. Two variants having different symptoms per viral load says nothing about the topic. Claiming it is possible to prevent all mutations with an extreme regiment also makes the wrong point for you. Obviously you understand how the vaccination is reducing mutation then.